News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I am not. You said Rasulo was incredible for the parks but now you disavow support for his biggest ideas. Saying you want Peltz’s and, more importantly, Rasulo’s “incredible” ideas to bring “balance” then actually own what that means. Own that it means a focus on timeshares over attractions. Own that it means less creative freedom in movie making. Don’t just claim ignorance and a blind desire for change, own the position.

We’re gonna need a quote on that one…

Anyone ever say they liked Rasulo? That’s a hard sell

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why? Because the necessary investments needed to make Disneyland Paris "show ready" have been made.

And why weren’t those investments being made when everything had to go through the banks for approval? You literally just told us the story of how what Peltz wants, more financial reviews, was bad for Disneyland Paris.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

And why weren’t those investments being made when ever I had to go through the banks for approval? You literally just told us the story of how what Peltz wants, more financial reviews, was bad for Disneyland Paris.

I don't think a board of directors being interested in their business unit's spending, is equivalent to banks wanting to get some amount of their cash back from a resort business that has lost money for two decades. If Peltz's plan really is to destroy show quality, he'll be chastened just like Eisner, Chapek, and Iger were.

You can't break rules on quality for very long.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't think a board of directors being interested in their business unit's spending, is equivalent to banks wanting to get some amount of their cash back from a resort business that has lost money for two decades. If Peltz's plan really is to destroy show quality, he'll be chastened just like Eisner, Chapek, and Iger were.

You can't break rules on quality for very long.

How is “banks wanting to get some amount of their cash back” not “return on investment”?

 

[Slpy3270]

It’s only 22% of the vote, and someone with an agenda leaked it in a desperate move. They likely know things don’t look good for their campaign, and are trying to scrounge some votes from people who see the article and jump on the bandwagon, or make others feel hopeless and not vote.

It’s fine - wait for the actual results.

With Top 30 shareholder CalPENS endorsing Peltz and Rasulo I'm increasingly convinced the Iger side leaked that number. There's no way Peltz would've leaked that number literally showing them winning if he thought he was losing. There's no logic behind that.

 

[Tha Realest]

With Top 30 shareholder CalPENS endorsing Peltz and Rasulo I'm increasingly convinced the Iger side leaked that number. There's no way Peltz would've leaked that number literally showing them winning if he thought he was losing. There's no logic behind that.

Would Peltz even have access to that data yet?

 

[Slpy3270]

Would Peltz even have access to that data yet?

Probably someone from the financial division who wants Iger gone? That's a possibility.

 

[Brian]

Probably someone from the financial division who wants Iger gone? That's a possibility.

I believe the vote is counted by PwC.

 

[Tha Realest]

Probably someone from the financial division who wants Iger gone? That's a possibility.

I see a few possibilities:

1) PWC collects the votes, updates all parties involved how the totals look at various junctures; one of those parties leaked it
2) Disney and the outsiders are made aware how large institutional entities are voting through indirect means (a la CalPERS’ announcement) and they are collating totals; one of the parties leaked it
3) TWDC knows, and selectively chose to leak a snapshot of what the vote to date looked like

 

[JoeCamel]

I believe the vote is counted by PwC.

They certainly have an unblemished record of fidelity - not

Beyond Cyprus, PwC has weathered a decade of global probes and scandals - ICIJ

The global accounting and auditing firm has featured in multiple ICIJ investigations, as well as legal and ethical dustups around the world.

www.icij.org

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Would you like change for the better, or just change for changes sake?

Just need to know what you are after. Positive change doesn’t seem to be on the slate.

I’d like positive change but I’ll take stalemate and no change over what we’re getting now. If Disney wants to waste billions on bad movies I can live with that, they can easily make good movies again in the future once they have competent leadership again, the problem is we’re going to be stuck with the current theme park changes for the rest of most of our lives, we’re now stuck with Pixar Pier, we’re now stuck with the hideous Guardians building at DCA, now stuck with the hideous Guardians building at Epcot, I prefer the new Epcot to the old Epcot so I won’t call it hideous but it’s pretty pathetic compared to what they could have done with all that land and money, even the Star Wars lands are disappointing compared to what they could have been. We're never going to get the Poly feel back, it's gone, hopefully the Grand Floridian survives with that renovation still in limbo but how bad is it I hope they don't renovate a hotel in need of renovation because I fear they'll mess it up? Nearly everything since Pandora has been disappointing and it's going to be decades before those lands are changed again. I'd love to see new projects, but if those projects are going to be bad and take up space that "could" be used for something good I'd rather they do nothing and save those projects for the next team.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

You realize that Rasulo had an absolutely terrible track record at parks and resorts regardless of what he tried to claim now right?

Yes I do, and somehow I still think he’d do a better job than the current team, I think they are that bad.

 

[BrianLo]

I’d like positive change but I’ll take stalemate and no change over what we’re getting now. If Disney wants to waste billions on bad movies I can live with that, they can easily make good movies again in the future once they have competent leadership again, the problem is we’re going to be stuck with the current theme park changes for the rest of most of our lives, we’re now stuck with Pixar Pier, we’re now stuck with the hideous Guardians building at DCA, now stuck with the hideous Guardians building at Epcot, I prefer the new Epcot to the old Epcot so I won’t call it hideous but it’s pretty pathetic compared to what they could have done with all that land and money, even the Star Wars lands are disappointing compared to what they could have been. We're never going to get the Poly feel back, it's gone, hopefully the Grand Floridian survives with that renovation still in limbo but how bad is it I hope they don't renovate a hotel in need of renovation because I fear they'll mess it up? Nearly everything since Pandora has been disappointing and it's going to be decades before those lands are changed again. I'd love to see new projects, but if those projects are going to be bad and take up space that "could" be used for something good I'd rather they do nothing and save those projects for the next team.

Fair enough. I think wanting Peltz to put a pause or reduce planned park investment since you trust none of them is a coherent argument in that sense. Rasulo makes me more dubious that you’d just get even more of what you don’t like, but that’s up for your own interpretation of his run.

I’d interpret it as negative change, but I generally like the lions share of what they’ve done in the parks the last 7 years. I think I’m more on my own with that sentiment. ‘Like’ being used in lieu of love.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Fair enough. I think wanting Peltz to put a pause or reduce planned park investment since you trust none of them is a coherent argument in that sense. Rasulo makes me more dubious that you’d just get even more of what you don’t like, but that’s up for your own interpretation of his run.

I’d interpret it as negative change, but I generally like the lions share of what they’ve done in the parks the last 7 years. I think I’m more on my own with that sentiment. ‘Like’ being used in lieu of love.

I think I’d categorize my position as desperation, I grew up a Disney kid, it’s a company I’ve always loved for being the best, Disney was the high standard for guest service, Disney was the high standard for storytelling, Disney was the high standard for theme park immersion… at this point I’ll accept any change in leadership rather than continuing to watch the slow death of “Uncle Walt’s“ company.

Everyone is worried Peltz may get in and kill Disney, I’m worried nothing will change and the current team will continue to kill Disney, because that’s what they’ve been doing for almost a decade now.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

In the micro, you're right that financial performance is not going to be impacted by one waterfall or one broken animatronic. However, these issues will build up and create the impression of decay if they become a pattern.

An example of a theme park that went through this process is Disneyland Paris. Disneyland Paris, following the devastation that was the opening of Walt Disney Studios Paris, went into deep cost-saving mode. That meant the amount of repainting was slashed, ride maintenance was curtailed, effects were turned off, and landscaping and other small features decayed.

A well built theme park can take a lot of abuse and still end up being presentable. The experience is worse, but it's still pretty good. But inevitably, the abuse takes its toll and the entire place becomes increasingly run down and broken. By the early 2010s, Disneyland Paris was an in atrocious shape. And Attendance was stagnate and Euro Disney SCA continued to lose money. Cue "Project Sparkle." Today, Disneyland Paris is making money consistently again. Why? Because the necessary investments needed to make Disneyland Paris "show ready" have been made. People don't want to visit a dystopian amusement park when they pay $150 to enter. They want to see some actual effort.

The same was true of Disneyland's early 2000s malaise. The mid 2000s focus on quality brought Disneyland into a resurgent period, setting the stage for the transformation of Disney California Adventure.

Theme parks are a really good business. Iger somehow failed to realize this, until his "deathbed conversion" in 2023. But people have been making these points on these boards for decades that consistent investment, adequate capacity, and good value will lead to Disney Park's lasting for decades.

I think this has been largely addressed already, but I'll just add that everything you're talking about involves an interest in the longterm viability of the business over short-term financial gain. This whole challenge is based on the latter goal, so why would Peltz be worried about how the parks business is looking in a decade's time (when he'll be 91, by the way) when the goal is to make as much money and cash out? It makes far more sense from his perspective to increase revenues and slash costs in the immediate future. After all, that money would be far better spent on dividends.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yes I do, and somehow I still think he’d do a better job than the current team, I think they are that bad.

I felt like I have said this before…

The P&R head does nothing but take orders on how to maximize park profits…and take the bullets when fans hate it.

Notice how that’s always the case? Because they don’t make decisions…it’s not like they decide on park additions or cruise ships

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I think I’d categorize my position as desperation, I grew up a Disney kid, it’s a company I’ve always loved for being the best, Disney was the high standard for guest service, Disney was the high standard for storytelling, Disney was the high standard for theme park immersion… at this point I’ll accept any change in leadership rather than continuing to watch the slow death of “Uncle Walt’s“ company.

Everyone is worried Peltz may get in and kill Disney, I’m worried nothing will change and the current team will continue to kill Disney, because that’s what they’ve been doing for almost a decade now.

I understand the desperation, but I think it's important to be able to identify the problem. Personally, I think contemporary corporate culture and especially the casino capitalism that Peltz represents which seeks short-term financial gains through investments with little regard to the long-term viability of a business are detrimental for the parks business for many of the reasons that have been cited already on this thread. As long as Disney is a publicly traded company and the culture remains the same, things are never going to go back to how they were in Walt's time, or really even the Eisner/Wells period.

In this instance, however, you have a challenge from someone arguing that Disney needs to lean even further into the mentality that has harmed the parks. He's even bringing along with him someone who played a key role in degrading the parks experience. So, unless your attitude is that you might as well put the company you loved out of its misery, it is ultimately cutting off your nose to spite your face to vote for this if you actually hope for the parks to improve.

 

[BrianLo]

I think I’d categorize my position as desperation, I grew up a Disney kid, it’s a company I’ve always loved for being the best, Disney was the high standard for guest service, Disney was the high standard for storytelling, Disney was the high standard for theme park immersion… at this point I’ll accept any change in leadership rather than continuing to watch the slow death of “Uncle Walt’s“ company.

Everyone is worried Peltz may get in and kill Disney, I’m worried nothing will change and the current team will continue to kill Disney, because that’s what they’ve been doing for almost a decade now.

I also hear you from the Disneyland Resort lens, which if I'm running my own mental tabulation, they've botched a lot more than WDW in the last 7 years. Well, DCA really. I think most of the domestic parks are better than they have been in a long time. DCA has declined since 2015/6. I don't mind current powers that be doing more of the same with bigger budgets, but I'm very much off on my own island with that take. I do not love Rasulo's portfolio, however. I take that advisement as a negative parks consequence of this whole affair if any of them get into the boardroom. Films - I really dislike Perlmutter and don't want him near the company again.

Peltz I feel like is showing his true colours, but there is a very vague argument that he could have had some positive consequences, maybe vaguely outweighing the negatives when Chapek was in charge. Contingent on Rasulo and Perlmutter not being on the team at the time. It's not like he has lacked a single good idea, I just think Iger was more apt to fix the entire situation. The return of Iger squeezed out the need for Peltz. Anything remotely of value Peltz had to add has been done already. Anything remotely he has identified as a problem, beyond those that are solved, he has actually offered zero solutions on how to fix. I think he is just agitating to take credit for those things in motion, like DTC profitability. Any true ideas he has that aren't in the above categories of having been adopted or in motion - I think are bad and harm the company. The only vague role for him is helping advising succession, but his own plan for Trian succession is even more vague and unending than Iger's reign. If his own house isn't in order, how is he a good advisor?

I think Peltz was and is going to push Jay for CEO, truly help us all if that were the case.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Truly I think Peltz was and is going to push Jay for CEO, truly help us all if that were the case.

Nope. Jay has changed. He’d love to be in the parks just long enough for a press event and doesn’t want to be CEO.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think this has been largely addressed already, but I'll just add that everything you're talking about involves an interest in the longterm viability of the business over short-term financial gain. This whole challenge is based on the latter goal, so why would Peltz be worried about how the parks business is looking in a decade's time (when he'll be 91, by the way) when the goal is to make as much money and cash out? It makes far more sense from his perspective to increase revenues and slash costs in the immediate future. After all, that money would be far better spent on dividends.

I don’t dispute that…

But the big problem with the current crop is they seem to only be able to focus on one place at once. And they don’t add…they repurpose and take things away……and put a new shiny toy in its place.

That isn’t working in the swamp